Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
XING LING MEI, etc., et al., respondents, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, defendant, New York City Transit Authority, appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for emotional distress, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated October 31, 2003, as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Transit Authority.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Transit Authority and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress insofar as asserted against the appellant should have been dismissed, since the plaintiff Xing Ling Mei was not within the zone of danger and had no contemporaneous observation of her son's death (see Bovsun v. Sanperi, 61 N.Y.2d 219, 223-224, 473 N.Y.S.2d 357, 461 N.E.2d 843; Gonzalez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 181 A.D.2d 440, 580 N.Y.S.2d 760).
Issues of fact precluded the granting of summary judgment with respect to the remaining causes of action (see e.g. Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d 828, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838, 647 N.E.2d 1346).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 02, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)